Apple now offering refurbished Apple TV for $75

The Apple TV set-top box may be a bit more attractive to some buyers, as a refurbished version of the device is now available direct from Apple for just $75, knocking 25 percent off the price of a new model.

The price drop could reflect Apple's reaction to Google's salvo against the Apple TV, which currently rules the roost among streaming devices. The refurbished model is now just over twice the price of Google's Chromecast, but it also comes with a 1-year Apple warranty and a much wider feature set than Google's streaming device.

Most recently, Apple added iTunes music purchasing to its set-top box, and a number of video apps have added AirPlay streaming capabilities over the last few months. Also, users may soon be able to use a touch to configure option to automatically set up their Apple TV devices in the near future.

Inside, the refurbished model has an Apple A5 processor, and it is compatible with high-definition televisions with HDMI and capable of 1080p or 720p at 60/50Hz. It can be purchased directly from Apple, with the refurbished device shipping within 24 hours. Depending on a customer's location, it may also be available for in-store pickup.

Chromecast will, very soon. A dev has already developed an app to mirror photos & vids from your phone/tablet to the screen. He just can't distribute it yet because the SDK is a preview version. Plus Chromecast is compatible (or will be) with every service out there aside from iTunes. That includes Google Play, Youtube, Vimeo, Netflix, HBO GO and probably Hulu Plus. Aereo TV has long been saying they will come to Android devices by summer, so it's not a stretch to think that they'll also incorporate Chromecast into both Android and Apple versions of apps/whatever.

Personally, I bought Chromecast, received it yesterday. Setup took 2 minutes, I was watching youtube & Netflix on my 51" HDTV only 5 minutes after opening the box.

I still love my Apple TV, but I plan to purchase 3 more Chromecast(s), one for each TV in my home. At $35, it's an easy solution for me because my family is cutting the cord when Aereo arrives in Tampa this fall. Plus the 3 months Netflix credit made it a no-brainer. iTunes has a larger library than Google Play, of this I have no doubt.

TL;DR:

Chromecast will probably offer the same functionality of Apple TV in the near future or devs will develop ways to make the product "complete." It's an inexpensive option to stream from iOS or Android devices and for someone cutting the cord but wanting to save cash, it's brilliant. Just my .02, as someone who owns Chromecast and Apple TV.

Actually, we don't know the full extent of this device's capabilities yet. The open API is impressive.

I think that's the big power of Chromecast- that it does so little and doesn't take control and define what it does do.

A big part of the lackluster performance (or failure, if you must) of Google TV isn't the product itself, its that content providers refuse to get on board. No way no how do they want internet content to find its way onto a TV and their locked down content distribution systems.

Chromecast kind of says fine, we won't have any defined content providers, you can just stream what you want off the internet onto your TV.

Netflix has already got on board because it fits their model. Content providers now have the shoe on the other foot... If they don't get on board there's a good chance their viewers will have an easy way to simply bypass them.

Hulu is a good example... They give free stuff away on the internet, but not on their TV distribution (you need to pay for Hulu Plus to get it). Now their own system could be bypassed, and reports have it they are working hard to get a system on board Chromecast that works for both Google and Hulu. The more people get on board, the more it is going to put pressure on those not on board.

For better or worse this could do to the networks what Google did to the newspaper industry.

If Apple TV's intent was to put in place an elegant UI, and then use that to deliver networks' locked down content while taking an 'Apple cut' of that business- then its not a good thing for Apple TV's model.

I just noticed Apple TV has an HDMI port... I'm half tempted to go out and buy both an Apple TV and Chromecast and plug the Chromecast into the Apple TV. Would that be like 'crossing the beams?'

I think that's the big power of Chromecast- that it does so little and doesn't take control and define what it does do.

A big part of the lackluster performance (or failure, if you must) of Google TV isn't the product itself, its that content providers refuse to get on board. No way no how do they want internet content to find its way onto a TV and their locked down content distribution systems.

Chromecast kind of says fine, we won't have any defined content providers, you can just stream what you want off the internet onto your TV.

Netflix has already got on board because it fits their model. Content providers now have the shoe on the other foot... If they don't get on board there's a good chance their viewers will have an easy way to simply bypass them.

Hulu is a good example... They give free stuff away on the internet, but not on their TV distribution (you need to pay for Hulu Plus to get it). Now their own system could be bypassed, and reports have it they are working hard to get a system on board Chromecast that works for both Google and Hulu. The more people get on board, the more it is going to put pressure on those not on board.

For better or worse this could do to the networks what Google did to the newspaper industry.

If Apple TV's intent was to put in place an elegant UI, and then use that to deliver networks' locked down content while taking an 'Apple cut' of that business- then its not a good thing for Apple TV's model.

...some very good points. But strategically speaking, Apple can (&/or already knows how to) respond to this. A few things could happen to the benefit of Apple and consumers. If Chromecast appears to be successful, content providers/networks would be more willing to sign a deal with Apple fearing napster-like evolution. Or Apple could release an ATV dongle at a lowered cost. Or Apple could revolutionize their AirPlay feature to provide faster streaming/processing video/audio to provide a better user experience than "chromecast".

Just remember the motive of Google in all of this. There's room for Google and Apple in this world. Probability of Google to fail is greater as they continue to spend on "loss leaders" just to disrupt, cripple and maintain control of search/ad. Apple disrupts but on a whole nuther level.

Chromecast will, very soon. A dev has already developed an app to mirror photos & vids from your phone/tablet to the screen. He just can't distribute it yet because the SDK is a preview version. Plus Chromecast is compatible (or will be) with every service out there aside from iTunes. That includes Google Play, Youtube, Vimeo, Netflix, HBO GO and probably Hulu Plus. Aereo TV has long been saying they will come to Android devices by summer, so it's not a stretch to think that they'll also incorporate Chromecast into both Android and Apple versions of apps/whatever.

Personally, I bought Chromecast, received it yesterday. Setup took 2 minutes, I was watching youtube & Netflix on my 51" HDTV only 5 minutes after opening the box.

I still love my Apple TV, but I plan to purchase 3 more Chromecast(s), one for each TV in my home. At $35, it's an easy solution for me because my family is cutting the cord when Aereo arrives in Tampa this fall. Plus the 3 months Netflix credit made it a no-brainer. iTunes has a larger library than Google Play, of this I have no doubt.

TL;DR:

Chromecast will probably offer the same functionality of Apple TV in the near future or devs will develop ways to make the product "complete." It's an inexpensive option to stream from iOS or Android devices and for someone cutting the cord but wanting to save cash, it's brilliant. Just my .02, as someone who owns Chromecast and Apple TV.

I love Aereo business model, but I am afraid they will get sued to the ground before they can really take off. Also it takes a lot of bandwidth, make sure you have enough.

Hey, anybody who is reading this article should jump at the ATV...Just having all your photos streamed to your flat screen is worth the price of admission.

Your GF, wife or partner...will think you are a genius. Your photos in "Ken Burns" effect, with a little light jazz playing all from your mac is really impressive. My friends come over and are really impressed how elegant it is.

We'll be talking in the kitchen while I'm preparing din-din and they will be talking with a little drinky-pooh with one eye on the TV waiting for the next photo of them. They really enjoy it! :)

I don't edit my photos or crop them....I just throw everything up and "shuffle" them...If I see a bad one I delete it.

Seriously, again, it is really worth it.

Best

P.S. If Apple comes out with a new one and you "want" it. Just Craigslist it for 50% or gift it to your daughter, niece or parents. I keep all the packaging of all my Apple products and either sell them or gift them and then go buy the latest and greatest iteration! I figure I basically rented it for <$4/mo.

I love Aereo business model, but I am afraid they will get sued to the ground before they can really take off. Also it takes a lot of bandwidth, make sure you have enough.

I'm concerned about the lawsuits, too. But so far it appears they're winning and have the backing to withstand.

You sound really familiar with Aereo, what bandwidth do you think is appropriate? Right now I have 15/5 FIOS plan but I can scale up, especially when I kick Direct TV to the curb. Thanks for the advice

Apple TV is lightyears better than Chromecast. Lightyears. Some of you guys need to take a breath and stop drinking the Google koolaid. Haven't you seen enough colossal failures to prove they suck at doing anything regarding the television?

Like the following comment

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Actually, we don't know the full extent of this device's capabilities yet. The open API is impressive.

We do know the extent of the device. It's what you have right now. And that's a streamer that mirrors only from Chrome, and can stream Netflix. Neato.

Let's not play the "what it can be" game. Until Chromecast isn't a basic, crappy device- it is a basic, crappy device. "Potential" means nothing- particularly with Google's track record.

Anyone check out Mossberg's review of the Chromecast on AllThingsD? In that article he mentions that AppleTV also has the ability to stream directly from the web initiated by Airplay. Its up to developers to use but most developer don't seem take advantage of the API.

I mentioned this before about the Apple provided YouTube App (with AirPlay) which came with iOS5 iPhone/iPad but it seems most did not get the that point the first time I said it. So, I'll say it again in light of the Mossberg article. If you do AirPlay to AppleTV from Apple's iOS5 YouTube App the AppleTV switches into client mode and gets the YouTube content directly from the web instead of getting feed over AirPlay by iPhone or iPad. The iPhone/iPad in that case just does control of the content being fetched by the AppleTV directly off the web.

I don't have Google's YouTube App installed on iOS6 so I have not bothered to see if it does the same thing. I guess I could try NetFlix's latest iOS App and see if does this also. I guess since the app are directly on the AppleTV I have no need.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz

...some very good points. But strategically speaking, Apple can (&/or already knows how to) respond to this. A few things could happen to the benefit of Apple and consumers. If Chromecast appears to be successful, content providers/networks would be more willing to sign a deal with Apple fearing napster-like evolution. Or Apple could release an ATV dongle at a lowered cost. Or Apple could revolutionize their AirPlay feature to provide faster streaming/processing video/audio to provide a better user experience than "chromecast".

Just remember the motive of Google in all of this. There's room for Google and Apple in this world. Probability of Google to fail is greater as they continue to spend on "loss leaders" just to disrupt, cripple and maintain control of search/ad. Apple disrupts but on a whole nuther level.

Apple does hardware tremendously and all their products work together elegantly- but at the end of the day when I want to watch TV I want the content itself and want my delivery device to just get the hell out of the way.

It's similar to books. The book is the book, and that's what I want to read. I don't care if I get it from iBooks or Amazon. If its sells on iBooks for $12.99 and $9.99 on Amazon you betcha I'm buying from Amazon... Its the exact same book. Apple can't add any of their 'magic' to it. Same goes for Game of Thrones.

Apple needs to be able to sell you the same thing for a higher price, or a means to make what they are offering substantially better. In the case of phones, Apple has a big say in what they deliver and clearly a lot of people appreciate that. In the case of Game of Thrones its the same show. If Google streams it to me for free on a $35 dollar device and Apple wants to charge me $100 for a device that gets me in the door to their platform, then wants to charge me again for Game of Thrones, it is not going to compete well with 'free'

Google again gets the advantage of not having to charge- their only mission in life is to ensure users use Google search and as many Google services as possible and what better way to ensure that than give away a device that will work on almost any platform with just one requirement.... that you use Google chrome?

If Apple gets a special "better" version of Game of Thrones or special "better" books that's a different story :) Barring that they won't do well on price competition if they insist on their higher margins.

Interesting, but it does essentially say '*IF* Google can get the networks on board' rather than showing that the networks are actually doing so. Networks have a very big interest in keeping the genie in the bottle. So much so that they spurned Google TV and without content there wasn't much product.

Google just shifted gears and said fine, if you're going to insist on thwarting Google TV we'll release a 'capability' without any content.

They removed the cork from the bottle but left the genie sitting. Its pretty clear, the Genie *will* get out of the bottle now, so the negotiation shifts to whether the networks want at least a piece of the action- or nothing. Its pretty similar to where the newspapers were a few years back and that whole new internet thing offered a more efficient way of delivering their product. Rather than accept that reality many chose to stick with what had worked 'for the last 50 years' and it didn't work out so well for them.

The jury is still out on Chromecast, but at $35 it just doesn't even rank as a 'product'... it ranks as a simple 'impulse buy'

I did see an article with some of the details on Hulu scrambling to work with Google. I haven't seen anything on similar efforts by HBO or ESPN but if the 'bigger kids' start getting on board this could get big quick. Or it could just get dropped overnight. It *is* Google :p

I think that's the big power of Chromecast- that it does so little and doesn't take control and define what it does do.

A big part of the lackluster performance (or failure, if you must) of Google TV isn't the product itself, its that content providers refuse to get on board. No way no how do they want internet content to find its way onto a TV and their locked down content distribution systems.

Chromecast kind of says fine, we won't have any defined content providers, you can just stream what you want off the internet onto your TV.

Netflix has already got on board because it fits their model. Content providers now have the shoe on the other foot... If they don't get on board there's a good chance their viewers will have an easy way to simply bypass them.

Hulu is a good example... They give free stuff away on the internet, but not on their TV distribution (you need to pay for Hulu Plus to get it). Now their own system could be bypassed, and reports have it they are working hard to get a system on board Chromecast that works for both Google and Hulu. The more people get on board, the more it is going to put pressure on those not on board.

For better or worse this could do to the networks what Google did to the newspaper industry.

If Apple TV's intent was to put in place an elegant UI, and then use that to deliver networks' locked down content while taking an 'Apple cut' of that business- then its not a good thing for Apple TV's model.

I just noticed Apple TV has an HDMI port... I'm half tempted to go out and buy both an Apple TV and Chromecast and plug the Chromecast into the Apple TV. Would that be like 'crossing the beams?'